Q. I would like to ask about negation. If I would like to say “Neither A, B, nor C is D,” is it also grammatically correct to write “A, B, and C are not D”?
A. Both are grammatically correct (though sticklers may insist that either-or and neither-nor can be used only with pairs), but the second version is slightly ambiguous, since it may be taken to mean either “A is not D; B is not D; and C is not D” or “A + B + C does not equal D.” It’s good to remember that even nonsense can be grammatically correct.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In an academic manuscript for journal submission, we contrast those who pursue deep and narrow expertise with those with the breadth and reputation of a Renaissance man. How can we best use “Renaissance man” without being sexist and without using quotation marks, which feels amateurish. Thank you very much.
A. It’s too bad that this perfect phrase is undeniably sexist. If you use it only once, you could either write “Renaissance man or woman” or gloss the phrase with a semi-apology (“what we used to call a Renaissance man”). If it’s going to keep cropping up, you would do better to find your own expression. “Renaissance mind”?
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Can you please explain how active and passive voice works. I am editing a technical document and I’d like to know how to better handle changing passive voice into active voice. Many thanks for your help!
A. Please see CMOS 5.118 for a very basic description of active and passive. There are also many online discussions and explanations: to find them type “active versus passive” into your search engine. Here is an elementary discussion from Purdue University; for more depth (and a great deal of amusement), here is a list of Language Log posts on the subject. Although it’s good to avoid excessive use of the passive voice, and it’s especially important to avoid using it to hide who has done something (“Lies were told”), the best writing usually involves regular use of the passive, and it would be a mistake to root it out as a policy.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am writing an annual report and the company wants it to be conservative, yet conversational. Mixing third person (the company made a profit) with first person (we made a profit) seems clumsy, but it could be the only way to make the report conservative and largely traditional, while still trying to get reader buy-in. Do you have any style tips on how to mix these different voices without coming across as inconsistent and clumsy?
A. A mixture of first and third person would actually be appropriate in this context. The owners of a company naturally talk and write about it in the third person as well as in the first, because there is a difference between the people who make up the company and the company as an organization: We made a decision and the company lost money. (We personally did not lose money; the company did.) We’re going to a party the company is hosting. (The company is picking up the tab; we get to drink the champagne.) Restricting the report to a single construction might even become monotonous and unnatural. “The company this, the company that” could begin to sound officious, and “we this, we that” might leave readers wondering who “we” are.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I just came across a sentence that said something like “The platypus looks like a cross among a duck, a weasel, and a rabbit.” Among sounds correct if used with talking, distributing, and so on with more than two entities, but cross isn’t the same sense and sounds incorrect because there’s no communication, distribution, or whatever. Is this after all correct, or should it be rewritten as “a combination of”?
A. “A combination of” reads better than “a cross among,” but you could also write “a cross between a duck, a weasel, and a rabbit,” since it’s merely a myth that between must be used for only two items.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Regarding wording on a historic marker, is it appropriate to have the marker read “Probable”
or “Vicinity of”? My view is both phrases are ambiguous and don’t
merit a marker at all.
A. “Vicinity of” is appropriate, because it tells viewers that they are standing
near the location of a historic event without claiming that it happened at that exact spot. It doesn’t
seem fair to disqualify an important event from commemoration just because recorded history failed to include its GPS coordinates.
“Probable” is a bit more dicey. By itself, it’s a little
suspect and not very helpful, but if the marker can explain further, then it too might be the best word to convey the facts.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. We have an editor who always uses the adverb “also” in front of verb phrases instead of splitting them. I can’t place the rule, but I’m sure this isn’t correct. For example, this editor uses “also will be” or “also has been” instead of “will also be” and “has also been.” Can you direct me to the correct rule for this usage?
A. Please see CMOS 5.104 and 5.171. It’s usual to put an adverb between a main verb and its auxiliary, as you do. This isn’t a rule per se, however, since clarity or emphasis may dictate a shift in position.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Does the sentence “The historian has several sources at their disposal” make
a proper use of the word their? Can it not be argued that the use of their in this sentence is acceptable to maintain gender neutrality?
A. Although many language writers and linguists accept the use of their as a gender-neutral singular, conservative editors will reword, especially when it’s so easy: Historians
have several sources at their disposal. (Or better: Several sources are available to historians.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m a technical writer who is also reviewing documents translated into English. An American consultant
is totally prohibiting the use of second-person you in all technical documents that are intended for engineers. I am not against the use of you. I would only recommend using it sparingly. Any advice?
A. It’s rarely wise to ban a construction entirely. The second person is useful in technical writing,
especially if there are imperatives in which you is implied (do this; don’t do that). The second person is less formal than the third person, but it
allows the writer to avoid the even more formal use of the passive (this should be done; that should not be done). One caveat:
using you “sparingly” might not be a good solution, if it results in a mixture of persons.
Better to commit.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. CMOS rules (at 8.22) point to “secretary of state” but “Secretary of State Kerry” or “Secretary Kerry,” so I am using “president” but “President Kirchner.” But shouldn’t I capitalize “the Pinochet Dictatorship”? and what about “the Kirchner Administration” and “the Kirchner Government”? Rather than “generic terms associated with governmental bodies” (8.65), they all form an important part of recent Latin American history, like the Mexican Revolution. In addition, they “follow a name and are used as an accepted part of the name” (8.51).
A. While administration and government are commonly capped in sources that don’t follow CMOS, to my eye “the Pinochet Dictatorship” (capped) looks bizarre. Can you imagine it stamped at the top of letterhead stationery or etched in gold leaf on a door? If so, then go ahead and cap it (even though Chicago wouldn’t).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]